A Comparative Study of E-learning Platform in Reading and Translating Course for Engineering Students
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PAPER
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN READING AND TRANSLATING COURSE FOR ENGINEERING…
A Comparative Study of E-learning Platform in
Reading and Translating Course for
Engineering Students
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i04.5551
Xue Shi
Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China
Abstract—Web-based learning environments are being more enrolling. Therefore, we consider Moodle as an e-learning
widely used in higher education to support face to face platform to support face to face teaching.
teaching activities. Universities in Europe, the United States, In response to increasing demand among non-linguistic
and other developed countries extensively use e-learning faculties for foreign language learning, a novel e-course in
platforms; however, this is still in the trial stage in Chinese reading and translation for engineering students was de-
universities and educational institutions. Moodle has been veloped. The aim of this study was to determine whether
considered as an interactive e-learning tool to motivate stu- this new teaching method is suitable for third-year under-
dents and involve them in resolving both individual and
graduate students and to compare attitudes and results of
collaborative tasks. In order to improve class attendance
students who followed electronic study versus conven-
and homework assignments submission, an e-course was
tional classroom study.
developed via Moodle and proved to be a positive teach-
ing/learning experience. Following this study, a series of II. LITERATURE REVIEW
conclusions can be drawn concerning its benefits in terms of
stimulating students’ interest in homework tasks and in- There are many reasons for the growth of the e-learning
creasing their frequency of interaction with teachers and industry, both from the universities and students’ perspec-
among colleagues. tives. Generally speaking, the demand for distance learn-
ing is increasing. The flexibility and availability of e-
Index Terms—e-learning, e-course, Moodle, higher learning can ensure further professional development be-
education yond the classroom. K. Werbach [2] pointed out that with
the limited capacity of classrooms and limited budgets for
I. INTRODUCTION building new facilities, e-learning was an ideal alternative
to traditional teaching methods. D. Benta explained, from
Technology plays an important role in many aspects of
the perspective of students [1], how e-learning helped
daily life, and its importance for education is by no means
them access the course materials as well as motivated
different. Over the last decade, the idea of applying Moo-
them to collaborate with their colleagues in doing home-
dle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Envi-
work.
ronment) in higher education has been increasingly adopt-
ed by universities and other academic institutions. Despite the above advantages, most Chinese universi-
ties continue to employ only traditional teaching methods
Moodle is a learning platform originally designed by
with no other additional support. S.C. Wang [3] consid-
Martin Dougiamas (first version of Moodle was released
ered the online courses as simply a copy of the traditional
on 20 August 2002). Moodle, as a robust open-source e-
classroom teaching, as the teaching content was basically
learning platform, and was used and developed in the
the same. L.Y. Zhu [4] proposed that teachers had less
years following its release by a global collaborative effort
supervision of the learning process. J. Wei [5] and J. Guo
of the international community. Moodle is designed and
[6] hold that Chinese teachers were more likely to have
continually improves to provide educators, administrators
face-to-face communication with students, and students
and learners with a single robust, secure and integrated
might better maintain self discipline in classrooms com-
system to create personalized learning environments [1].
pared with online learning.
The above mentioned e-learning platform was installed
within Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology in III. METHODOLOGY
recent years and it definitely contributes to making the
teaching and learning process between students and pro- A. Analysis Of The E-Learning Platform
fessors more efficient and effective. However, its use has Utilizing the benefits from using e-learning platforms to
not become compulsory so far and it is used as a learning support traditional classroom teaching is a growing ten-
resource, as a means of teaching-learning as a supplement dency in educational practices. One type of e-learning
conventional lectures. Since 2013, the web-based platform platform, Moodle, enables the content management
Moodle has been used as a means of e-learning in writing (courses, homework), ensures synchronized collaboration
courses for linguistic students. Because of its flexibility (by chat or videoconference) as well as non-synchronized
and simplicity for navigation and creation of course mate- collaboration (forum, message, blog.) and, it can be used
rial, a growing number of students have shown interest in in managing the students that applied for the course [7-8].
120 http://www.i-jet.org
PAPER
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN READING AND TRANSLATING COURSE FOR ENGINEERING…
Figure 1. Multifunctional Interactive Environment via Moodle
By means of this platform a multifunctional interactive posed of lectures (10 weeks, held once a week), oral
environment between professors and students is provided, presentation (5 weeks, after lectures) and a final examina-
as shown in Figure 1. Within this platform students learn tion (in the last week). According to the bylaws of the
by direct, collaborative participation, where both students Faculty of Material Science, a lecture on the same topic
and their professors can have synchronized or non- was held from Monday to Wednesday. Students who
synchronized access to the platform [9-10]. A series of chose classroom seminars were divided into 3 subgroups
communication facilities, such as forums, chat rooms and to follow the course on a certain day. E-seminar students
message systems are provided by this e-learning platform. would follow the lectures on-line on the same topics as
By means of forum discussion, students can communicate scheduled. Lectures focused on explaining engineering
with their peers or professors in a non-synchronized man- related terms, reading comprehension and translation
ner at any time, as long as there is an internet connection. skills. A team of five or six students was required to give
The forum discussions can be related to general topics of an oral presentation, lasting up to 20 min, using Power
interest or can be focused on a specific topic, where either Point, in front of other students (for classroom students) or
student users or professor users can initiate a discussion. through videoconference (for e-learning platform stu-
Unlike the forum, the chat room system provides a syn- dents) on a topic delegated by the teaching assistant in
chronized communication opportunity for all users on the charge of that team. A 25 minute period of questions,
course platform at a given time, which leads to real-time comments and discussion followed the presentation. In the
discussion [11-12]. Through the message system, users can last week, all students attended the final exam which was
conduct private communication among themselves, and a paper test of 100 points for passage reading and transla-
students can view their peers’ information or share files tion.
with them. All topics for lectures, as shown in Table I, were print-
This e-learning platform enables good communication ed and distributed to students two weeks in advance of the
and socialization by means of chat or forum, both between start of the course, during which time these 179 students
students and professors. Individual communication with the could consider whether or not to take participate in the e-
professors can be achieved or topics can be discussed by learning platform. Those who applied for the platform
all users that access the platform [13-14]. learning format were exempt from attending classes when
corresponding lectures were scheduled. Students had to
B. General Layout Of The Course create their own username and password in order to access
The course of Reading and Translating at the Faculty of the e-learning platform. The results of students’ choices
Material Science, Luoyang Institute of Science and Tech- and the basic information is shown in Table II, which
nology is compulsory for engineering students in the fifth shows no apparent difference in the two groups, except
semester of undergraduate studies. Students, 179 in total, that males more tend to prefer e-learning platform (54.5%
who passed Comprehensive English, held in the first four of males (72/132) prefered to take e-seminars, while only
semesters, entered this course. The course lasts for 16 40.4% of females (19/47) did so).
weeks (from September to December, 2015) and is com-
iJET ‒ Volume 11, Issue 4, 2016 121
PAPER
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN READING AND TRANSLATING COURSE FOR ENGINEERING…
TABLE I.
TEACHING CONTENTS IN READING AND TRANSLATING FOR THIRD-YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS
Topics
Week 1 Introduction to Material Science and Engineering
Week 2 Materials: Ferrous Alloys and Non-ferrous Alloys
Week 3 Materials: Advanced Structural Ceramics and Functional Ceramics
Week 4 Introduction to Welding Process
Week 5 Welding Metallurgy
Week 6 Metal Flow in Die Casting
Week 7 Optimization of Properties in Aluminum Casting
Week 8 Bulk-metal Forming and Sheet-metal Forming
Week 9 Heat Treatment of Steel
Week 10 Principle of Heat Treatment of Steel
Week 11 Presentation topic: Classification of Materials
Week 12 Presentation topic: Introduction of Polymer, Semiconductor or Composites
Week 13 Presentation topic: Some new Developments in Welding
Week 14 Presentation topic: Precision Casting Process
Week 15 Presentation topic: Fundamental of Metal Forming
TABLE II.
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STUDENTS OF TRADITIONAL CLASSROOMS VERSUS E-LEARNING PLATFORM
Number Males Females GPA>80
Traditional classrooms 88 60 28 23.86% (21)
E-learning platform 91 72 19 25.27% (23)
Total 179 132 47 -----
These findings prove that it is not a proper time for the
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION e-learning platform to completely replace traditional
C. Pre-Course Survey classroom teaching since not all students are ready for
that. At present, it is better to set a transitional period
To further evaluate the motives for enrollment in each during which Moodle serves as a supporting teaching tool
situation, a short questionnaire was administered [15], for classroom activities.
related to several motives for enrollment and their initial
expectations. Students in both situations were required to D. Course Participation
answer this survey before they accessed the first lecture The class attendance subject is a very sensible one. The
topic. Each answer was rated on a Likert scale from 1 to current situation is that the higher the students’ grade, the
5, 1 denoting “strongly disagree” and 5 denoting “strong- lower the course participation. According to the faculty
ly agree” with a given statement. Scores of the pre-course bylaws, attendance is calculated positively determined by
survey for each situation are presented in from Table III grade. When Moodle was used, higher course participa-
to Table VI. Students considered the reason “To enjoy the tion was observed. From the total number of enrolled
flexibility of learning” as the strongest motive to partici- students, only 4% were absent, the remaining 96% at-
pate in e-learning platform. tended the online courses (Figure 2-a). In the case where
The results of the pre-course survey are very optimis- the traditional classroom teaching was employed, only
tic. Students had high expectations of e-learning platform 82% attended classes while 18% were absent (Figure 2-
study which could be concluded from the result that no b).
one chose “strongly disagree” to the statements. Students This was as expected. In the traditional way, students
hoped to reap the benefits provided by the e-learning plat- had to register with the faculty secretary and attend
form including access to an abundant amount of authentic courses using printed resources. When using the e-
materials, the hypertext structure, multimedia capabilities learning platform, students could log in via computers or
and online communication. Furthermore the easy accessi- mobile devices and download electronic resources.
bility and non-restricted time restraints of the net made it
more flexible and attractive. Comparing the two situations, some remarks can be
made. When the e-learning platform was used, it was
The preference of traditional classroom students sug- more convenient for students to participate, as they found
gests students’ concerns about the e-learning platform it very intuitive and easy to use. They were stimulated not
include a lack of opportunities for in-depth and face-to- only to think independently but also to participate in co-
face interaction between and among teachers and stu- operation and discussion. There are many ways to en-
dents, uncertain online learning goals without teachers’ courage course participation and using e-learning plat-
guidance and students’ deficiency of online learning form is an effective one.
skills. Moreover, they were accustomed to the teacher-led
classroom mode and were not confident in self-directed
learning.
122 http://www.i-jet.org
PAPER
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN READING AND TRANSLATING COURSE FOR ENGINEERING…
TABLE III.
REASONS FOR ENTERING THE COURSE FROM TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM STUDENTS
1 2 3 4 5
1. To have more face-to-face community 0 5% 6% 11% 78%
2. To follow teachers’ instructions 0 0 7% 36% 57%
3. To get immediate feedback 1% 8% 17% 32% 42%
4. To maintain the status quo 8% 12% 31% 26% 23%
5. To better self discipline while learning 8% 18% 34% 23% 17%
TABLE IV.
EXPECTATIONS FROM THE COURSE FROM TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM STUDENTS
1 2 3 4 5
1. To better learn the course material 0 0 32% 32% 36%
2. To better bond with professors 0 2% 33% 31% 34%
3. To cultivate relationships with colleagues 0 0 19% 25% 56%
TABLE V.
REASONS FOR ENTERING THE COURSE FROM E-LEARNING PLATFORM STUDENTS
1 2 3 4 5
1. To better learn the course material 0 11% 24% 34% 31%
2. To avoid physically coming to the class 0 0 3% 20% 77%
3. To enjoy the flexibility of learning 0 0 7% 26% 67%
4. To try a new mode of learning 0 4% 16% 40% 40%
5. To finish the homework faster 0 15% 42% 22% 21%
TABLE VI.
EXPECTATIONS FROM THE COURSE FROM E-LEARNING PLATFORM STUDENTS
1 2 3 4 5
1. To better learn the course material 0 0 29% 32% 39%
2. To have fun while learning 0 0 15% 27% 58%
3. To pick up something new 0 0 30% 31% 40%
Figure 1. Course participation in traditional classroom versus e-learning platform
The reason behind this phenomenon is that students
E. Homework Submission were not allowed to access the next lecture topic if they
The E-learning platform has proved useful in terms of did not finish the homework before the deadline. In this
homework tasks. A higher number of homework assign- way, students were stimulated to resolve homework on
ments were submitted using Moodle compared to the time. Further analysis of the server logs discovered that
traditional way of submission by writing on a paper and most of the performed and recorded tasks were home-
handing it in (Figure 3). The difference is very signifi- work-oriented tasks and as the deadline approached, there
cant; using the traditional way, only 78% of the total was a higher frequency and volume of platform usage and
amounts of homework assigned were actually submitted. homework submissions. These facts prove that homework
In contrast, when Moodle was used, 98% was recorded as completion and submission were improved and students’
submitted homework. interest in the course increased.
iJET ‒ Volume 11, Issue 4, 2016 123PAPER
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN READING AND TRANSLATING COURSE FOR ENGINEERING…
Figure 2. Homework submission in traditional classroom versus e-learning platform
satisfaction, impression and future expectations for the
F. Course Communication course. Students in both situations had the same questions
Another benefit of the e-learning platform is that the and possible answers to the six statements and were also
virtual learning environment makes the students more rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 while the last question
active in class, especially for those who are shy in a tradi- is open-ended. The positive attitudes to statements 4 and
tional classroom setting. Some students are inhibited from 5 highlight the difference.
asking questions in face-to-face classrooms, however, As seen in the results given in Table VIII, students
they readily ask questions or make comments online or in were more satisfied overall with the e-learning platform.
the Discussion Forum. At the same time, they have many expectations for the
Table VII records the numbers of questions asked by functions of the platform, such as:
students related to the course. A large gap can be • Automatic check for homework
observed between traditional class and e-learning class in
the number of questions asked, which suggests that using • More on-line tests
the e-learning platform played a significant role in • More friendly learning environment
facilitating student participation and overall course • Quick feedback
communication between and among students and Students of the traditional setting display a lower
teachers. As other authors have pointed out, better percentage of satisfaction. Their expectation for the
communication will contribute to group development and
fostering a sense of working as a team [1,9,10]. Through course mainly includes:
synchronized discussions or non-synchronized com- • More interaction with teachers in classroom
munications, students express points of confusion or • Clear learning object and instructions from teachers
doubt and they are more task oriented with few or no • More active learning environment
interpersonal conflicts as distractions. • Variety of teaching aids
G. Post-Course Survey
At the end of the 15th week, before the final exam, the
post-course survey was conducted related to overall
TABLE VII.
COMPARISON OF COURSE COMMUNICATION
Questions asked during 1-10 weeks (lecture) Questions asked during 11-15 weeks(presentation)
Traditional classroom 35 97
E-learning platform 106 368
TABLE VIII.
COMPARISON OF POST-COURSE SURVEY
Item Percentage of students with positive attitude
Traditional classroom E-learning platform
1. My reading and translating skills were improved 62/88(70.4) 66/91(72.5)
2. I had fun while learning 45/88(51.1) 80/91(87.9)
3. This mode of learning is much better than the other one 37/88(42.0) 70/91(76.9)
4. I would recommend this mode to other students 41/88(46.6) 91/91(100.0)
5. I’d like other courses to adopt this mode 39/88(44.3) 91/91(100.0)
6. I feel ready for the final examination 49/88(54.5) 52/91(57.1)
124 http://www.i-jet.orgPAPER
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN READING AND TRANSLATING COURSE FOR ENGINEERING…
[5] J. Wei, “An Exploration and Practice of the Moodle-based Man-
V. CONCLUSIONS Machine Interaction Translation Teaching,” Journal of Yunan
Agricultural University, 2015, vol.12, no. 9, pp. 108-113
Although it cannot replace traditional education in a [6] J. Guo, “Explore Application of College English Oral Teaching
classroom setting, the effects of using an e-learning plat- Model Based on Moodle,” The Guide of Science & Education,
form to support teaching can be concluded from three 2015, vol. 36, no. 2, pp.89-90.
aspects: [7] M. Virtual. Learning Environments: Using, Choosing and
(1) Moodle is a cost-effective learning environment Developing Weller Your VLE, London: Rouledge, 2007, pp. 4-5.
which stimulates students’ interest in the course and their [8] G. Carmen. “A Study about Using E-learning Platform (Moodle)
commitment to finishing assignments. With more and in University Teaching Process”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Science, 2014, vol.215 , no. 10, pp. 426-432
more installment in Chinese universities, the Moodle plat-
[9] D. Benta, G. Bologa, S.Dzitac, I. Dzitac, “University Level
form will definitely have a significant and positive impact Learning and Teaching via E-learning Platforms ,” Procedia
on the teaching-learning process. Computer Science, 2015, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 1366-1373.
(2) Based on this comparative study, the e-learning http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.123
platform has been considered as a support for students in [10] D. Ben!a, ". I.Ni!chi,, R. F Paewop. “Efficient Team Building for
order to facilitate their learning. They are more involved On-Time Projects,” Journal of Information Systems & Operations
Management, 2011, vol. 5, no.6. pp. 31-43.
in the course and more actively interact with professors
[11] P. Koehn. “A Process Study of Computer-aided Translation”.
and their colleagues through the on-line chat room or Machine Translation, vol.23, no.4, pp. 241-263, November 2009.
discussion forum. So far, it has proved to be a successful http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10590-010-9076-3
experience. [12] D. Carless. “Implementing task-based learning with young learn-
(3) In the future, more and more courses will be posted ers.” English Language Teaching Journal, vol.56, no.4, pp.389-
on this platform. However, according to the feedback 396, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.389
from students, a number of functions need to be improved [13] Q. Xiaoqing, Quantitative Data Analysis in the Study of Foreign
and both teacher and student users’ demands should be Language Teaching. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science
and Technology Press, 2004.
taken into consideration. As a final conclusion, this e-
[14] R. Bullough, S. Pinnegar. “Guidelines for quality in autobio-
learning platform is highly recommended in supporting graphical forms of self-learning research,” Educational Re-
teaching activities, homework tasks and course commu- searcher, vol.30, no.3, pp. 13-21, 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
nication. 0013189X030003013
[15] S. Gadzhanov, A. Nafalski, Z. Nedic. “Computerised
REFERENCES Measurement Laboratory for Engineering Students”. World
[1] D. Benta, G. Bologa, I. Dzitac, “E-learning Platforms in Higher Transaction on Engineering and Technology Education. 2014,
Education. Case Study,” Procedia Computer Science, 2014, vol. vol.12, no.3, pp.380-385
27, no. 11, pp. 1170-1176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.
05.373 AUTHOR
[2] K. Werbach, “Clicks and Mortar Meets Cap and Gown: Higher Xue Shi is a lecturer in School of Foreign Languages,
Education Goes Online,” Realese 1.0, 2000, vol. 18. no. 8, pp. 1-
22
Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology, Luoyang,
[3] S.C. Wang, “Teachers’ Role in Computer Assisted Language
471023, China. Her research interests include the applied
Learning ” Asia-Pacific Education, 2014,vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 212- linguistics, English language teaching, etc. (email:
213 xuewonder @aliyun.com)
[4] L.Y. Zhu, “The Current Situation and Thinking of Computer Submitted 06 February 2016. Published as resubmitted by the author
Assisted Language Teaching in Colleges and Universities in Chi- 23 March 206.
na,” Journal of Qiqihar Junior Teachers’ College,2015, vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 129-131
iJET ‒ Volume 11, Issue 4, 2016 125You can also read
